Wednesday, October 18, 2006
|
|
Kuo's Cuckoo Advice: Surrender to Secularists
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
3:25 AM
|
|
Today (Wednesday) I had the chance to interrogate – or at least interview—David Kuo, author of the lavishly controversial new book TEMPTING FAITH, which has provided the most recent tool for Bush-bashing by the nakedly partisan press.
Most attention has focused on Kuo’s assertions about disrespectful remarks about religious leaders by some of his unidentified past associates in the White House office of Faith-Based Initiatives, but much of the book (which I admit I have not read in its entirety) focuses on the author’s thwarted hopes for vastly increased federal spending on anti-poverty programs. He concludes with an “Afterword” entitled “Fast, Let’s Fast” that argues that just as Jesus and Moses fasted from food for forty days each, so today’s people of faith should “fast” from political involvement-- perhaps for as much as two years. Of course, a fast-fast that lasted even as briefly as forty days would bring us just beyond the upcoming elections, so his plea isn’t even subtle in its attempt to suppress conservative turnout and hand victory to the Democrats.
While it’s easy to sympathize with Kuo’s disappointment that the big federal innovations he expected never took shape, and it’s even easier to sympathize with some of his recent health problems, there is neither sense nor sanity in his desire to immobilize the powerful movement of Christian conservatives so painstakingly assembled over the past thirty years. He writes: “We need to eschew politics to focus more time on practicing compassion. We need to spend more time studying Jesus and less time trying to get people elected.” He ignores the fact that for most people of faith, it’s not an either-or proposition: we can study scripture at the same time that we’re working for our political principles, and we can “practice compassion” in private at the same time we endorse compassionate policies in public. Yes, it’s crucial to extend personal assistance to a frightened, pregnant teenager who might feel tempted to abort her baby, but it’s also essential to use political platforms as well as mass media to help build what Pope John Paul II described as a “culture of life.”
The deepest problem with Kuo’s confessional/polemic (which has drawn attention only because of its usefulness to the political left) is its assumption that by fasting from politics, and handing victory to the determined enemies of traditional religious values, people of faith will help themselves find deeper satisfaction and salvation. His logic represents the political equivalent of suggesting that soldiers can help themselves by deserting the battlefield. Sure, you may personally enhance your life by walking away from a fight but you’ll still need to face your deadly enemy in the future and at that point you’ll need to recapture lost ground.
The political struggles of the moment really do matter– to defend our beloved country from the very real horrors of Islamo-Nazi terror, to protect the institution of marriage from irrevocable alteration, to save some of the millions of babies lost each year to abortion, to defeat the madness of multiculturalism and to affirm the importance of one nation, under God, indivisible. When compared to the consequences of defeat in these battles (a defeat that Kuo, for all his protestations, seems to crave and recommend) his obsession with faith-based anti-poverty initiatives seems petty, almost childish.
In other words, you don’t need to feel tempted in any way by the arguments in TEMPTING FAITH – and you certainly don’t need to support the leftist establishment behind the book by buying it. But you may well want to listen to the exchange in which Mr. Kuo gamely participated on Wednesday, and to his defense of himself and his position from energetic attacks from both the host and the callers.
|
|
From most of the comments, it does not seem like people have read the book yet. I would encourage people to check it out. I am most of the way through it, and think Kuo's points have not been fairly represented.
He is bringing his experiences to the table, and suggesting that even though evangelicals provide the plurality of the vote to keep conservative candidates in office, the press of other problems and high ranking staffers who are indifferent to evangelical concerns often keep what they were promised from getting accomplished.
The message I see Kuo making as much as any other is that the traditionalists in this country are more powerful than they understand, and they need to do a better job of holding even sympathetic office holders accountable for results. He makes makes other worthwhile observations as well. I don't agree with all of them, or his interpretation of all of them. But it is important to see that this book is not simply some hit piece.
Let the misrepresentations, or fascination with the somewhat out of context pot shots continue, but I think that any honest person interested in accomplishing things in politics would do well to take a look at the book. Don't fear the dissenter, understand why he dissents. Either he will be full of it, or he will have a point. If he is full of it, *then* dismiss him. If he has a point and we dismiss it a priori, well, that's a problem. |
|
|
I don't consider researching candidates' views and track record and then going to vote "heavy political involvement" lol. Not sure which "old argument" I advanced, other than the old argument that people should vote. |
|
ALL I said was that we should vote. I didn't even say which specific candidate or party. I wouldn't say vote a straight ticket either. Yet I would vote for someone I agree with closer than someone I completely disagree with. I'd hope you'd do the same.
Try not to put extra words in my mouth. |
|
"Sooooo, are you saying evangelicals should just stay at home, thus netting one vote for a candidate who is OPENLY opposed to everything the evangelical believes is right? This is an all or nothing proposition"
The old argument that Christians should be heavily involved in politics to advance their agendas and beliefs should move to the next step - why don't Christians just form their own political party, put up a candidate like Dobson or Ralph Reed and be done with it? It might b a more practical solution than trying to be power broker to the cynical Rove-head right wing, who know which side of their toast has the jam. |
|
I've taken the liberty of writing your next post for you:
"I was so pleased by the response to my last letter that I decided to write another one. Don't worry; I have plenty of new stuff to say about Seth and his coadjutors. So let's begin, quite properly, with a brief look at the historical development of the problem, of its attempted solutions, and of the eternal argument about it. When I first heard about his insults, I dismissed them as merely manipulative. But when I later learned that Seth wants me to lie awake at night wondering who his next victim will be, I realized that Seth has gotten away with so much for so long that he's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only a man without any sense of limits could desire to pander to self-serving harijans. Seth is a bit teched. And that's why I say to you: Have courage. Be honest. And keep our priorities in check. That's the patriotic thing to do, and that's the right thing to do." |
|
-The irreligious comment came from someone on the left. -inoperable brain tumor? Come again?
The rest of your comments are so disconnected from anything anyone wrote, I have nothing else to say, lol. BTW, I could have writen your post with a random word generator, fairly indicative of the foaming-at-the-mouth folks on the left that like to skulk around convervating blogs. |
|
Interesting how every ex-employee who criticizes the republicans is either a liar, irreligious, crazy, vengeful, or has an inoperable brain tumor. Conservative reaction is always predictable - I could have written most of these posts before the writers did.
Kuo is telling Christians out there that they are being exploited by the Republican Party and the White House..oh, no, it can't be true! Anyone who would even think that isn't a True Beleiver, is the WRONG KIND of Christian, a TOOL of the DEVIL. |
|
Funny thing is that Kuo apparently can't even complete a paragraph without blatantly contradicting himself. "Jesus...wasn't about pro-life.....Jesus comes to give life, give it in full"
And if someone wants to make the point that Jesus wouldn't have cared about a zygote or fetus because that isn't life (or whatever), refer to Psalms 139 in combination with Jeremiah 1:2 where it says:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"
Even before I was a zygote, to God, I was a person whom he knew. And connect that with Christ coming to give me life in full. I think it is pretty obvious what Christ's postion would be on abortion. To spin it otherwise is to create all kinds of non-sensical arguments about how only those who go on to become persons are persons back in the womb, those that are aborted are not persons in the womb, etc.
|
|
I found this interesting - on the Colbert Report, Kuo said this:
Kuo: "Because it gives the impression that Jesus endorses a particular political agenda, you know, that Jesus is somehow, you know, pro-life, anti-homosexual, pro-Iraq war and pro-estate tax. You know, when Jesus actually wasn't about those things. You know, It's the good news. Jesus was raised from the dead. Jesus comes to give life, give it in full. That's Jesus. One is politics. A big difference."
Now, I can buy some of that. Jesus isn't pro Iraq War, for instance. Or pro estate tax. You can't make a case that Jesus would have agreed with one or the other, at least in an explicit manner.
But Jesus wasn't pro-life? That's a shocking statement, and it belies that Kuo is more disconnected from American evangelicals than he would have us believe. Its as if he's totally disconnecting the commands of Jesus from the political realm, and seeking to say "to heck with all of it". Good Christians are going to look at the political arena and make decisions about politicians and politics that promote Christian causes. They shouldn't think that political victory is everything, but neither should they withdraw from the political process. |
|
Ok, lets go with that idea. Sooooo, are you saying evangelicals should just stay at home, thus netting one vote for a candidate who is OPENLY opposed to everything the evangelical believes is right? This is an all or nothing proposition? If there isn't an evangelical to vote for, don't vote? If I disagree 100% with one candidate and 75% with another, I should make sure the one I know I disagree COMPLETELY with gets voted in by sitting at home??
I'm missing something here. |
|
By saying that evangelical voters should turn out anyway, no matter how neglectful or disrespectful the GOP may be, he supports Kuo's position that the Republicans are working this group for their narrow, venal interests.
Why do conservatives work so hard to cry out that African Americans are taken for granted by the Democrats, but they can't take the same assertion about one of their core groups?
|
|
It's easy for people to assume they know something about a faith they don't share, so I'll just provide this little quip from Jesus himself:
"The poor you will have with you always."
[In response to Judas's feigned incense about wasting expensive perfume washing Jesus' feet when it could have been sold and money given to the poor. Yes EXTREMELY ironic that it was JUDAS who made that point about the poor being more important than anything...]
So frankly, if Jesus made the point about the poor not being more important than all other concerns, that is good enough for me. Now what was that someone saying about this perspective being irreligious??? |
|
You openly say that it's "childish" to be concerned about poverty above all. Unbelievable, but a good key to why the religious right is so dispiritingly irreligious. If you really think that killing Muslims is more imporant than alleviating the suffering of the poor, you have lost all sense of morality. Kuo mentions it himself:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/14/60minutes/main2089778.shtml
"He took 60 Minutes to a convention of evangelical groups – his old stomping ground - and walked around the display booths, looking for any reference to the poor.
"'You’ve got homosexuality in your kid’s school, and you’ve got human cloning, and partial birth abortion and divorce and stem cell,' Kuo remarked. 'Not a mention of the poor.'
"'This message that has been sent out to Christians for a long time now: that Jesus came primarily for a political agenda, and recently primarily a right-wing political agenda - as if this culture war is a war for God. And it’s not a war for God, it’s a war for politics. And that’s a huge difference,' says Kuo."
|
|
|
|